RIAA: MediaSentry attacks based on “entirely fictional” laws

As P2P file-sharing defendant Jammie Thomas prepares for her retrial this …

Jammie Thomas-Rasset, whose P2P file-sharing retrial begins June 15 in Minneapolis, has a new lawyer named "Kiwi" Camara, and he's doing all he can to have the main evidence against her tossed out. Camara has attacked MediaSentry, the firm that investigated the case on behalf of the RIAA, then went further to attack the ethics of all the lawyers involved.

The RIAA has just dropped a scathing filing of its own on the court, saying that Camara's motion to dismiss is "premised on an entirely fictional set of facts and law" and that the ethics claim is "merely an unfortunate and unprofessional attack made in a desperate attempt to suppress evidence that Defendant and her counsel know is ruinous to her defense." Such an accusation "merits no further response."

There's nothing like condescension, hostility, and personal dislike to keep a court battle interesting; judging from the recent filings by both legal teams, this case will be a fiery one. Reading the RIAA response, one can practically see the disdain dripping from the page. In the view of recording industry lawyers, the debate over MediaSentry is little more than a circus sideshow.

That's because MediaSentry collected only publicly available information which was sent to its machines over the public Internet. Investigators did not "break into" anyone's machine, they did not "wiretap" anyone's communications, and they were not "private investigators" because they simply noted some very public information.

"It cannot be a violation of either the ethics rules or the law to log on to a peer-to-peer network," says the RIAA, "as any other user of the network could do, request copyrighted files being offered by users on the network, and then record the information sent. Indeed, Defendant has not—and cannot—cite a single authority that holds this conduct to be violative of laws or ethics."

One of Camara's arguments against MediaSentry was that the company had not secured a private investigator license in the state of Minnesota. This is a charge that has repeatedly been made against the company in states like North Carolina, Michigan, Oregon, and Massachusetts, but it's one that the recording industry has repeatedly called baseless. In this case, RIAA lawyers say that MediaSentry did not violate the Minnesota Private Detectives Act (MPDA) because, quite simply, it has never operated in the state of Minnesota.

"The MPDA does not apply to persons or companies operating outside of the State of Minnesota," says the new filing. "Minnesota's licensing scheme cannot apply to non-Minnesota entities conducting activities in other states, especially where such entities may be subject to other licensing requirements. Here, MediaSentry does not operate in the State of Minnesota and conducted no investigation within the State of Minnesota that could possibly subject it to the State’s licensure requirements. MediaSentry has no employees in the State of Minnesota and does not conduct any activities in the State."

Camara also made the claim that it was illegal for MediaSentry to record even basic information like IP addresses as part of its work, since such behavior basically amounted to operating an unsanctioned "pen register." Pen register devices are used by law enforcement to collect routing and signaling information, but not the contents of communications. Such devices are often placed on a phone line to find out who a suspect is calling (and being called by) in order to generate more leads.

But, according to RIAA lawyers, laws regulating such devices are "not intended to prevent individuals who are receiving communications from recording information sent to them. If that were the case, standard computer operations that require recording of IP addresses supporters may communicate over the Internet would be prohibited and the Internet could not function."

Bottom line: "If simply recording an IP address and metadata sent to someone over the Internet was illegal, copyright holders would be unable to protect their content on the Internet."

I know this is not Europe, but if I recall correctly, Europe decided that a computer's IP address was private information. Now we can argue how the internet is mostly based on TCP/IP and I will accept that as a valid argument, but if I may add: MediaSentry was connecting to p2p networks with the purpose to INVESTIGATE who was file sharing, and based on the IP addresses obtained, people were identified. I do not see how the RIAA's argument will hold up in court.

Hate to say it, but the RIAA seems to be right here. Their harsh words towards the person are pretty standard for disputes. Is anyone honestly going to say "my opponent's arguments are correct"? Have the file-sharers ever said "Yeah, the RIAA suing us is totally legit"? No, you always claim that the person is violating your rights. Their counter-arguments seem to be within the spirit of the law. Maybe there's some small footnote that changes things, I dunno.

As far as I know, just because even if MediaSentry's actions were legal they do not preclude them from falling into the "private investigation" classification.

Also, this case is breaking new ground as far as how the jurisdiction of law on entities which are virtually present applies. Physical presence isn't the only basis on which jurisdiction applies, and while in cases involving the internet it's usually based on where information was accessed, Camara has a good argument that MediaSentry, due to the work they do, they should be bound by the laws of the place on which their investigations are focused.

Because otherwise you could easily hire someone operating out of some third world country with no such laws (or no law at all) and then all your actions would be prima facie legal - which would lead to ridiculous results (and despite a lot of people on the other side, the law is very much concerned with, inter alia, efficacy and practicality).

Camara is right to push this issue, as it definitely needs a court decision. MediaSentry has long been acting as a private investigator without any regulation, and that needs to stop. The RIAA may attempt all the bravado it wants, but it's way past time that someone clamped down on their cowboys.

Obviously, if MediaSentry contacted someone in Minnesota and asked them to transmit copyrighted data, then they are operating in the State of Minnesota, the second part of the submission is pure nonsense.

How would the law work if you used a telescope in Iowa to record the activities of a Minnesota citizen while going about their business in Minnesota? Seems to me like this would still be an investigation in Minnesota. Or do you need a federal investigator license since you are investigating across state lines? Is there such a thing?

I am hoping for a dismissal due to the evidence getting thrown out due to lack of PI license.

I am not in any way trained in the law, but if it turns out MediaSentry's methods of obtaining information were illegal, could we see all of the previous settlements become invalidated, or are they already set in stone?

I would also love to see a wholesale legalization of file sharing through the fair use claim that the other Harvard lawyer is arguing, although I have no idea how that is actually going to work.

I think the requirement of a PI license is to assure that the highest standards were used in recording the information. For example: The PI must certify that the information is real, was taken by them, and could not have been falsified without their knowledge. If they don't have the license, what assures the court that such was the case(bureaucratically/legally). This include information taken in a public setting. For example: following someone around a city and taking pictures of them performing some action.

If they are from out of state, do they have a license from the state they are currently based out of? Or is employing an out of state PI a loophole to get around the requirement? Id say no, because this argument has been used to invalidate their evidence in other states. Chances are MediaSentry is going to lose this part.

The other arguments by Camara seem to be pure nonsense. Either he is ignorant on technical matters, which I doubt, or he's thinking 'what the hell, maybe one will float. Certainly won't hurt"

Surely what Media Sentry is doing requires a PI license. They are hired among other things to gather evidence to convict someone of distributing copyrighted works. As to the jurisdiction issue, since their purpose is to file legal action against the person about whom they are gathering evidence in the state the infringement occurred; it would seem they should have to be licensed in that state as well. How could a court trust the "evidence" they gathered were they not entirely assured of the methods they used to gather them and knew that they were certified to be gathering such evidence. Considering computer evidence is highly susceptible to being falsified it would only seem reasonable to require the person collecting the evidence to have gone through the required training to collect evidence in the state the lawsuit is filed in.

326.338 PERSONS ENGAGED AS PRIVATE DETECTIVES OR PROTECTIVE AGENTS. Subdivision 1. Private detective. Persons who for a fee, reward, or other consideration, undertake any of the following acts for the purpose of obtaining information for others are considered to be engaged in the business of a private detective: (1) investigating crimes or wrongs done or threatened against the government of the United States or of any state, county, or municipal subdivision thereof; (2) investigating the identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, transactions, reputation, or character of any person or organization; (3) investigating the credibility of witnesses or other persons; (4) investigating the location or recovery of lost or stolen property; (5) investigating the origin of and responsibility for libels, losses, accidents, or damage or injuries to persons or property; (6) investigating the affiliation, connection, or relationship of any person, firm, or corporation with any organization, society, or association, or with any official, representative, or member thereof; (7) investigating the conduct, honesty, efficiency, loyalty, or activities of employees, persons seeking employment, agents, or contractors and subcontractors; (8) obtaining through investigation evidence to be used before any authorized investigating committee, board of award, board of arbitration, administrative body, or officer or in preparation for trial of civil or criminal cases; or (9) investigating the identity or apprehension of persons suspected of crimes or misdemeanors.

I'm pretty sure what MediaSentry is doing falls into several of those categories and requires a PI license in Minnesota the same as you need a PI license to collect evidence of a cheating spouse by taking photos in a public place.

Originally posted by F16PilotJumper:Here is the relevant section of Minnesota law:

quote:

326.338 PERSONS ENGAGED AS PRIVATE DETECTIVES OR PROTECTIVE AGENTS. Subdivision 1. Private detective. Persons who for a fee, reward, or other consideration, undertake any of the following acts for the purpose of obtaining information for others are considered to be engaged in the business of a private detective: (1) investigating crimes or wrongs done or threatened against the government of the United States or of any state, county, or municipal subdivision thereof; (2) investigating the identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, transactions, reputation, or character of any person or organization; (3) investigating the credibility of witnesses or other persons; (4) investigating the location or recovery of lost or stolen property; (5) investigating the origin of and responsibility for libels, losses, accidents, or damage or injuries to persons or property; (6) investigating the affiliation, connection, or relationship of any person, firm, or corporation with any organization, society, or association, or with any official, representative, or member thereof; (7) investigating the conduct, honesty, efficiency, loyalty, or activities of employees, persons seeking employment, agents, or contractors and subcontractors; (8) obtaining through investigation evidence to be used before any authorized investigating committee, board of award, board of arbitration, administrative body, or officer or in preparation for trial of civil or criminal cases; or (9) investigating the identity or apprehension of persons suspected of crimes or misdemeanors.

I'm pretty sure what MediaSentry is doing falls into several of those categories and requires a PI license in Minnesota the same as you need a PI license to collect evidence of a cheating spouse by taking photos in a public place.

Super informative!

point 2 clearly states that anyone who investigates the identity is said to be engaged in the business of being a PI. If they are using IP addresses to identify the defendant, then clearly MSentry will require a license.

"Fictional laws"? Wow, that's a good one. In what universe do these guys live?

quote:

That's because MediaSentry collected only publicly available information which was sent to its machines over the public Internet. Investigators did not "break into" anyone's machine, they did not "wiretap" anyone's communications, and they were not "private investigators" because they simply noted some very public information.

So? PI's collect public information all the time. The key is that a PI is paid to do so for investigative purposes.

BTW, as a point of reference, let's consider the meatspace equivalent of what MediaSentry was tracking, shall we? Peeking at the flow of packets on a network is very much equivalent to tracking the progress of a physical letter or package through the mail system, is it not? Would MediaSentry have the legal right to follow a letter through the USPS system?

If not, then Camara actually has a point: monitoring traffic in this fashion would be equally illegal for such an unlicensed commercial entity. The fact that it's SO EASY to do it is no justification for the legality of the practice.

The moment they touched a computer who's address is in Minnesota, and they were charging for the time used, and they were doing investigative work, they became private investigators in Minnesota.

Sorry, RIAA, your counter arguement FAILS. You did work "in Minnesota", and you obviously contacted people who also did work in Minnesota on your behalf (the ISP). Therefore, you are bound by the laws of Minnesota.

Originally posted by F16PilotJumper:Here is the relevant section of Minnesota law:

quote:

326.338 PERSONS ENGAGED AS PRIVATE DETECTIVES OR PROTECTIVE AGENTS. Subdivision 1. Private detective. Persons who for a fee, reward, or other consideration, undertake any of the following acts for the purpose of obtaining information for others are considered to be engaged in the business of a private detective: (1) investigating crimes or wrongs done or threatened against the government of the United States or of any state, county, or municipal subdivision thereof; (2) investigating the identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, transactions, reputation, or character of any person or organization; (3) investigating the credibility of witnesses or other persons; (4) investigating the location or recovery of lost or stolen property; (5) investigating the origin of and responsibility for libels, losses, accidents, or damage or injuries to persons or property; (6) investigating the affiliation, connection, or relationship of any person, firm, or corporation with any organization, society, or association, or with any official, representative, or member thereof; (7) investigating the conduct, honesty, efficiency, loyalty, or activities of employees, persons seeking employment, agents, or contractors and subcontractors; (8) obtaining through investigation evidence to be used before any authorized investigating committee, board of award, board of arbitration, administrative body, or officer or in preparation for trial of civil or criminal cases; or (9) investigating the identity or apprehension of persons suspected of crimes or misdemeanors.

I'm pretty sure what MediaSentry is doing falls into several of those categories and requires a PI license in Minnesota the same as you need a PI license to collect evidence of a cheating spouse by taking photos in a public place.

Super informative!

point 2 clearly states that anyone who investigates the identity is said to be engaged in the business of being a PI. If they are using IP addresses to identify the defendant, then clearly MSentry will require a license.

Sorry for the long quote, but 6 and 8 also apply here. Since the court itself is in Minnesota, 8 is prima-facia evidence that MediaSentry MUST have had a valid PI license in the state of Minnesota for their evidence to be admissable. Open and shut. And since 6 is exactly what MediaSentry did when they contacted Ms. Thomas's ISP....

"The MPDA does not apply to persons or companies operating outside of the State of Minnesota," says the new filing. "Minnesota's licensing scheme cannot apply to non-Minnesota entities conducting activities in other states, especially where such entities may be subject to other licensing requirements. Here, MediaSentry does not operate in the State of Minnesota and conducted no investigation within the State of Minnesota that could possibly subject it to the State’s licensure requirements. MediaSentry has no employees in the State of Minnesota and does not conduct any activities in the State."

This is quite humorous in a sense. It's like saying that the RIAA hired a PI in California to wiretap a telephone in Minnesota, and because the PI never had to leave California to do it, that the telephone physically located in Minnesota was never tapped. OK, fine, if that's the case, then, it must mean that the alleged MediaSentry evidence gathered from a Minnesota resident, and specifically from that resident's personal, Minnesota-based computer, is fictitious--and therefore such evidence should be thrown out.

Telephone lines are also public--just as public as Internet lines. The RIAA is saying that it has no need for a snoop license in Minnesota because it never had to enter the state of Minnesota to acquire its evidence, and yet said evidence is taken directly from the defendant's own personal computer located at her private Minnesota residence.

It seems to me that the only equitable ruling possible here is to accept the RIAA's position regarding its inability to prove that it is in compliance with Minnesota's snoop laws, and to therefore throw out all of the RIAA's evidence gathered from a personal computer located in the state of Minnesota, and allow the RIAA to proceed without that evidence if it can.

The RIAA's position that it does not have to comply with Minnesota's snoop laws in order to investigate a Minnesota resident, that resident's personal computer physically located in Minnesota, in order to then sue that individual in the state of Minnesota based on that evidence, strikes me as completely untenable.

Frankly, I think the RIAA lawyers have gotten away with so much egregious abuse elsewhere that they simply feel that the law does not pertain to them but only to the people the RIAA sues.

"In this case, RIAA lawyers say that MediaSentry did not violate the Minnesota Private Detectives Act (MPDA) because, quite simply, it has never operated in the state of Minnesota.

The MPDA does not apply to persons or companies operating outside of the State of Minnesota," says the new filing. "Minnesota's licensing scheme cannot apply to non-Minnesota entities conducting activities in other states, especially where such entities may be subject to other licensing requirements. Here, MediaSentry does not operate in the State of Minnesota and conducted no investigation within the State of Minnesota that could possibly subject it to the State’s licensure requirements. MediaSentry has no employees in the State of Minnesota and does not conduct any activities in the State."

Whoa! If you do business like ordering something from a company over the internet, the business transaction takes place in the state where the company that handled the order resides. If you download something from a site, for example you access arstechnica.com, then the activity for the downloading transaction takes place at arstechnica.com and thus in the state-province-etc... in which it resides. Simply being on the receiving end of getting the file or product or whatever it is, is only the destination, the actual transaction took place where the server resides (or the file share in this case). If it resided in Minnesota then it resides in Minnesota, just because the destination happens to be different from where the server or file share is located doesn't mean that you are not doing some sort of transaction in Minnesota.

MediaSentry did operate in Minnesota. (I haven't gone back and read but I seem to remember that MediaSentry 'Investigators' even visited Jammies daughter at the childs school. So how is this not operating in Minnesota?)

Theres just so much wrong with the RIAA response. Sounds like they are a little worried, or is this some sort of ploy to get the defense trapped in some way? But, we will see how the case turns out.

If Jammie wins, I think a movie would be in order. They do movies about other landmark court cases (of which I think this is one)and this might be just as interesting.

and then this:

"That's because MediaSentry collected only publicly available information which was sent to its machines over the public Internet. Investigators did not "break into" anyone's machine, they did not "wiretap" anyone's communications, and they were not "private investigators" because they simply noted some very public information."

Whoa there again RIAA, how about getting off your white horse there for a second and think!

They didn't get the information until they accessed the share (if it existed). According to the RIAA there were 'millions' of people offering shares for access. The information wasn't known to MediaSentry until they accessed her computer. So out of 'millions' (The RIAA's own words) how could they possibly know what that information is until they accessed her computer or in some way got a list of this information and picked out this particular one?

MediaSentry was acting as an 'investigator', they were even cited as 'investigators' in the court case. Maybe not as Private Investigators, but they were qualifed before the court by the RIAA as 'investigators'. The difference between a Private Investigator and an 'investigator' is that a Private Investigators means of business is selling their services for money to the public at large. On the other hand an 'investigator' does so as an employee of another company or as a private citizen (if not in law enforcement). At any rate, the requirements for both as it pertains to investigations is that both must meet the burden of being qualified by virtue of education, training, experience, ability, and capability. So, if the RIAA is going to put forth MediaSentry as an 'investigator' they need to meet the requirements and they fall way short on doing so. And these requirements require certain events or actions to take place when collecting evidence or information to present to the court. One of these things is that there has to be a reasonable probable cause to investigate, there was no reasonable probable cause. Simply lurking around on a file sharing network somewhere peeking into peoples shares is not probable cause to investigate. Probable cause has to start somewhere or with something that leads an investigator to investigate.

In an investigation, each step is a progression towards a probable and reasonable conclusion based upon previous steps. You can't just jump in and say "File sharing is the primary means of infringement so i'm going to investigate people using Kazza.", something has to lead you to a reasonable conclusion that a specific person at specific times or dates using Kazza is sharing to infringe.

Does MediaSentry have a complete listing of all this information for the other 'millions'? Like any crime or offense, you can't simply go on a fishing expedition hoping to uncover some sort of wrong doing simply to justify something. If you witness it happening or receive creditable information its happening then it can be investigated and evidence collected. But you simply can't fish around hoping to uncover something when there is no probable cause to do so. Although Kazza may have been offering shares that were publicly viewable, the act of accessing someone computer because you 'think' something resides there; thats not probable cause because even though there may be indications such as a file name, you don't know if that file is actually what you think until you download it and the presence of a file name is not creditable information when there are 'millions' to choose from because any of these 'millions' could have had the actual file. Simply because something is named something is not substantial information to result in probable cause to believe that an actual offense occured when there are millions of choices and millions of possible "suspects".

Now, sure, the purpose of offering the share is to share stuff, OK, I can understand why or how someone would say "OMG, she's sharing something illegal." Its like a rumor that you hear, some believe it and some don't, but no one knows the truth behind the rumor until the truth is exposed, and in this case they would have had to download a file to see if it was actually what they thought. But, if you have 'millions' of choices then the absence of probable cause becomes even more pronounced because the likely hood of discovering an offense without knowing what or who to begin with means the odds are so astronomical that it can't possibly meet the burden of a conclusion a resonable person would arrive at that a specific person at a specific time was committing a specific offense or violation. Its like me or anyone else just picking a name out of the phone book and then choosing to investigate that person hoping to uncover something based on their name being 'Smith', simply because someone named 'Smith' committed a crime once. This is like saying that every person in the U.S. is going to be investigated in hopes of uncovering some wrong doing. What MediaSentry did was the same thing, they didn't know before hand and did not have creditable information before hand to believe an offense had been committed until they downloaded the file. This was a fishing expedition plain and simple.

Originally posted by VulcanTourist:BTW, as a point of reference, let's consider the meatspace equivalent of what MediaSentry was tracking, shall we? Peeking at the flow of packets on a network is very much equivalent to tracking the progress of a physical letter or package through the mail system, is it not? Would MediaSentry have the legal right to follow a letter through the USPS system?

If not, then Camara actually has a point: monitoring traffic in this fashion would be equally illegal for such an unlicensed commercial entity. The fact that it's SO EASY to do it is no justification for the legality of the practice.

MediaSentry did not monitor the flow of traffic over any network but their own. They logged on to kazaa requested a download and recorded the IP address the packet came from when it reached their computer. No wiretapping was involved.

However, MediaSentry should still require a license to PI work, since PI's only have access to public information this defense is nonsensical. But it does raise some interesting questions. You obviously cannot hire a PI from Iowa to investigate in Minn. and not need a PI license. But over the internet you won't know what state you are investigating in until you've collected the evidence. Does this mean all companies that do PI work over the internet will need to be licensed in all states or will they need a special internet license.

Hmmm.... Good times for all with this little tiff from the little guy. I really hope the judge rules in favor of Kiwi and then he files on behalf of all the people that have settled over the past few years to get their money back. Now that would be the ultimate bitch slap to the RIAA and one I would so love see happen.

Color me crazy if I am wrong, but having a PI license is not so much about where you can and cannot gather information as it is licensing to gather said information for court use if needed. Maintaining the integrity of the evidence and whatnot. If that is the case then the fact that her IP, and her unloads were public info does not mean shit. Again, I suppose it goes to the intended reason for licensing PIs int he first place, but I am pretty certain that is what it is for.

Originally posted by F16PilotJumper:Here is the relevant section of Minnesota law:

quote:

326.338 PERSONS ENGAGED AS PRIVATE DETECTIVES OR PROTECTIVE AGENTS. Subdivision 1. Private detective. Persons who for a fee, reward, or other consideration, undertake any of the following acts for the purpose of obtaining information for others are considered to be engaged in the business of a private detective: <snip>

I'm pretty sure what MediaSentry is doing falls into several of those categories and requires a PI license in Minnesota the same as you need a PI license to collect evidence of a cheating spouse by taking photos in a public place.

Super informative!

point 2 clearly states that anyone who investigates the identity is said to be engaged in the business of being a PI. If they are using IP addresses to identify the defendant, then clearly MSentry will require a license.

Sorry for the long quote, but 6 and 8 also apply here. Since the court itself is in Minnesota, 8 is prima-facia evidence that MediaSentry MUST have had a valid PI license in the state of Minnesota for their evidence to be admissable. Open and shut. And since 6 is exactly what MediaSentry did when they contacted Ms. Thomas's ISP....

Can someone look in to the Minnesota laws that are applicable to the following situation? Someone in California hires a PI to observe someone. That someone flies out to Minnesota. The PI follows and takes pictures there of a crime. Are those pictures then admissible in a Minnesota court?

Entirely separate from the question of whether MS is licensed as a PI anywhere is the question of whether they need to be licensed in their home state or in every state they intend to bring cases in. It seems rather nonsensical to me in this day and age to require a PI to stop following someone as soon as they cross state lines, so I'd expect some sort of reciprocity provisions in laws, where you just need to be licensed in your home state.

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:Color me crazy if I am wrong, but having a PI license is not so much about where you can and cannot gather information as it is licensing to gather said information for court use if needed. Maintaining the integrity of the evidence and whatnot. If that is the case then the fact that her IP, and her unloads were public info does not mean shit. Again, I suppose it goes to the intended reason for licensing PIs int he first place, but I am pretty certain that is what it is for.

Agreed. Also, a licensed PI presumably knows how far they can go in the gathering of evidence without breaking the law themselves.

Basically, the RIAA wants it both ways. Hopefully they get caught:Way 1. They do exactly what a normal kazaa user would do [to gather information], and this supposedly doesn't require a license (despite the fact they clearly fall into the PI licensing requirements).

Way 2. The investigative techniques are proprietary, and therefore cannot be subject to scrutiny, as it will run MediaSentry out of business [which, by the way, RIAA no longer uses them, there's some other company they've switched to].

Reading their filings, they argue one or the other, depending on the motion made.

I'd love to see a decision one way or the other. Sure, you should be allowed to recover damages, but the courts are not a place "to make an example out of" someone, by throwing money at it until you've bankrupted your customer.

Everyone seems to assume that if Media Sentry falls under Minnesota's PI licensing requirement, then the data they collected must be thrown out. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like a given. Fourth amendment protections apply to criminal, not civil cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule). From the same article, "Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials."

It seems more likely to me that Media Sentry may be liable to fines from the state for unlicensed operation, without having to discard the data they collected.

RIAA can't have it both ways, either stuff occurred in MN or it didn't.

Engaging in a transaction with someone, across state lines, if it is a normal part of your business, usually grants jurisdiction in the state where the transaction took place. Here, Media Sentry definitely transacted with Thomas's computer--all of the network handshaking, p2p search-->result-->file request-->file supplied etc. This is something they've done in how many thousands of these file sharing lawsuits. I don't know for sure, but I'm going to assume for the sake of argument the RIAA supplies a large portion/majority of Media Sentry's business. /Someone/ definitely contacted Thomas's ISP in MN, whether this was Media Sentry or RIAA with Media Sentry's evidence in hand (one of /your/ subscribers, located in /this/ state, was found to be doing x, identify them) is largely irrelevant.

If MediaSentry never operated in MN, then I guess that means Thomas's transfer didn't occur in MN. For non-corporations, you pretty much have to be sued where you do the action (choice of law clauses nonwithstanding).

Hmm, either they need a PI license because they gathered evidence for use in a trial in MN (see above posters) or I guess this whole case could get tossed for improper venue. Who knew?

So, the RIAA DOES recognize it as a set of facts and law, fictitious though it may be. We have our DEFENSE!

Getting serious, I think the RIAA is peeved, because the eyes have been turned from file-sharing to their information collection operations. How do we know all that MediaSentry evidence is real? It's all just data. It can be faked. What if they got someone elses data mixed in with hers? Not saying sharing illegal files is ok, but neither is the way the RIAA going about this. Just fine the lady $3000 and get on with life.

Originally posted by MattRensing:Everyone seems to assume that if Media Sentry falls under Minnesota's PI licensing requirement, then the data they collected must be thrown out. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like a given. Fourth amendment protections apply to criminal, not civil cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule). From the same article, "Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials."

Originally posted by MattRensing:Everyone seems to assume that if Media Sentry falls under Minnesota's PI licensing requirement, then the data they collected must be thrown out. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem like a given. Fourth amendment protections apply to criminal, not civil cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule). From the same article, "Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials."

A private person is different from a private investigator

The fact that they were gathering evidence for a potential court case legally defines them as private investigators. And, per the law, they should have been licensed.